HDC Presents: 100 Years of Horror

[Straker]

It's hard to get excited about a lot of the movies in the run in for honourable mentions if I'm honest. As long as the really awful movies don't make the cut I'll be satisfied.

[neverending]

I have to agree!

[_____V_____]

All added.

3 films from the SIX drop down to contenders, while 2 other films with latest backings join them up in the ranks - Tremors and Arachnophobia.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943

Thanks, Villain. I think we can at least go 24 hrs or so for Honorable Mentions. That's still pretty swift sailing. Some our participants need at least 24hrs to find time to participate. No need go faster than that, IMO.

Honorable Mentions isn't that huge as the top 22. Films will be mentioned, not highlighted. And it's usually the ones left with majority of the backings which didn't make the cut. If we debate long and hard over them, that will take a lot longer to complete as well.

The project's been long-delayed (we started in November last year!), and we are in the 90s from the 14th of this month (that's 4 days to select 2 films + 6 Hon Mens). If I wait for every/all member to log in and voice, then the delay could continue much longer.

That's why I mention "majority" at each juncture.

Suppose I am waiting for someone, who for some reason stops logging in for a couple days/ a week or more, should I be delaying the project as well? How am I to know how long they are planning to stay offline?


Anyway, we are back to debating, folks. Sorry about the see-saws. Keep the thoughts coming.

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by _____V_____

Honorable Mentions isn't that huge as the top 22. Films will be mentioned, not highlighted. And it's usually the ones left with majority of the backings which didn't make the cut.

If I wait for every/all member to log in and voice, then the delay could continue much longer.

I'm just saying from the date/time you post, "OK, on to the Honorable Mentions", we should give it at least 24 hours. That's because people come on at different times in the day. We'd still be going pretty swift if Honorable Mentions was completed between 24-48 hours. And if there's some good discussion, I'd assume that's part of the purpose. And there's only one decade left.

[Sculpt]

edit, no post

[neverending]

I'll go with Event Horizon as well.

[The Villain]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

I'm just saying from the date/time you post, "OK, on to the Honorable Mentions", we should give it at least 24 hours. That's because people come on at different times in the day. We'd still be going pretty swift if Honorable Mentions was completed between 24-48 hours. And if there's some good discussion, I'd assume that's part of the purpose. And there's only one decade left.

Not for nothing but if we waited that long, things would constantly keep getting shifted around and a choice would never be made like the ridiculously long time the 70's took. Like V said, the honorable mentions aren't as important

[Sculpt]

Originally Posted by The Villain

Not for nothing but if we waited that long, things would constantly keep getting shifted around and a choice would never be made like the ridiculously long time the 70's took. Like V said, the honorable mentions aren't as important

Say, you're not just wanting to be argumentative, are ya.:) V didn't say the Honorable Mentions (HM) are less important, he said the 6 aren't as huge as the 22, and most of the work is done already. It should go without saying the HM are "less important" than the 22 by the simple logic of the semantic "honorable mention" distinction.

If they weren't important, we wouldn't be doing them. As one member once aptly posted,

"I just want to add one more thought to this debate. These lists we create are not just amusing passtimes for us to fool around with and forget. People read them. They take them into account in their formation of opinions."

For HM, if the process was to simply take the films left over with the most backings, that would be the rule instead of it merely being an option (which the vast majority usually choose not to do).

I also take the 100 Years of Horror list seriously, including the HM. I simply recommended we give at least 24 hours because participants get to the forum at different times of the day. Is that really a contentious request? If there happens to be a top 6 in 6 hours, yet were missing 3-4 folks who have been fairly consistently involved within every 24 hrs, is that really what were aiming for?

You should realize, if everyone was here at the same time, we could add up the backings in 30 mins. That doesn't mean we would have only 6 films with a majority (there could be 4 w/ 5 votes, and 4 w/ 4 votes). Less than 24 hrs is not what produces 6 films with a majority. It happens by chance, and discussion/debate gets us to 6. Is that really debatable?

Besides, we're here on this forum (& this thread) because we enjoy discussing horror film with other aficionados. That's a big part of why were doing this. I tell you the truth, I don't want to make things take longer, as there's always other threads to talk film. Rather 24 hrs assists more regular participants, like yourself, to create a great list.

[The Villain]

Originally Posted by Sculpt

Say, you're not just wanting to be argumentative, are you. V didn't say the Honorable Mentions (HM) are less important, he said the 6 aren't as huge as the 22, and most of the work is done already. It should go without saying the HM are "less important" than the 22 by the simple logic of the semantic "honorable mention" distinction.

If they weren't important, we wouldn't be doing them. As one member once aptly posted,

For HM, if the process was to simply take the films left over with the most backings, that would be the rule instead of it merely being an option (which the vast majority usually choose not to do).

I also take the 100 Years of Horror list seriously, including the HM. I simply recommended we give at least 24 hours because participants get to the forum at different times of the day. Is that really a contentious request? If there happens to be a top 6 in 6 hours, yet were missing 3-4 folks who have been fairly consistently involved within every 24 hrs, is that really what were aiming for?

You should realize, if everyone was here at the same time, we could add up the backings in 30 mins. That doesn't mean we would have only 6 films with a majority (there could be 4 w/ 5 votes, and 4 w/ 4 votes). Less than 24 hrs is not what produces 6 films with a majority. It happens by chance, and discussion/debate gets us to 6. Is that really debatable?

Besides, we're here on this forum (& this thread) because we enjoy discussing horror film with other aficionados. That's a big part of why were doing this. I tell you the truth, I don't want to make things take longer, as there's always other threads to talk film. Rather 24 hrs assists more regular participants, like yourself, to create a great list.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative. V never moves on to the next round until he gets enough say so from everyone involved, so you really don't need to worry about time restraints. All i was trying to say was basically what V already said, that it would take a long time to wait for every member to cast a vote so as soon as he gets a majority vote, he moves on so there's not constant arguing. I don't think there's anything wrong with how he's been doing it so far, but you do and you were trying to take it up with him so i'll stay out of it from now on.

[_____V_____]

It's okay, Villain. We are already into overtime.

Event Horizon moves into the Honorable Mentions as well. 2 more spots left to fill.

http://www.horror.com/forum/showthre...943#post954943